As more U.S. forces head to Mideast, military experts break down capabilities

As President Trump says he's working on a deal to end the Iran war, more troops are heading to the region. John Yang discussed the capabilities of the forces and how they could be used with Joel Rayburn and Frederic Wehrey. Rayburn is a retired Army colonel and is now at the Hudson Institute. Wehrey is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors. John Yang: While President Trump talks about trying to make a deal with Iran to end the war, more U.S. troops are headed to the region. The 82nd Airborne Division's 1st Combat Brigade Team has been ordered to deploy, and the Marine amphibious warship the USS Tripoli is expected to arrive in the Middle East in the coming days, along with other assets. So what new capabilities do these forces bring, and how might they be used? For that, we turn to two people with extensive military experience. Retired Army Colonel Joel Rayburn served in the first Trump administration on the national security staff with a focus on Iran in the Middle East. He's now at the Hudson Institute. And retired Lieutenant Colonel Frederic Wehrey focused on the Middle East during his two decades in the Air Force. He's now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Jack Rayburn, let me start with you. What new capabilities will the United States forces have with these new troops? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.), Former Trump National Security Council Staff: Good to be with you. Well, the troops of the 82nd Airborne Division that are being deployed, that's part of the Rapid Deployment Force that can deploy anywhere in the world with very short notice. The 82nd Airborne Division, the brigades and battalions of that division are uniquely trained for forcible entry into contested territory. So they're the kind of troops that do rapid insertion into, for example, strategic infrastructure like an airfield. If you think about the war in Grenada back in the Reagan administration, it was the 82nd Airborne Division that seized the airfield on Grenada. And they usually do that in order to pave the way for, open the way for follow-on, more robust, heavier forces to come in after them. So that's an insertion force. The Marine forces that are coming, there are two Marine expeditionary units that are on their way as part of amphibious ready groups. Those are the kind of forces that are trained and equipped to do amphibious assaults onto islands, onto ports or to seize vessels. So, two very similar forces, move rapidly, be able to be able to seize key infrastructure quickly. John Yang: Fred, anything you don't want to add to that? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.), U.S. Air Force: I agree. These are remarkable forces. They strike deep. They strike hard. They're quick Response Forces. As was mentioned, they're designed to seize assets very quickly so that other forces can flow into a region as part of a larger assault force. They're not designed for longer-duration operations. And they're also, I should add, self-contained, especially the Marine units. They have their own air support, their own armor, their own helicopters. And that makes them able to really go anywhere in the world and operate autonomously. John Yang: Jack, how would you expect these troops to be used? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Yes, I think clearly what's happening here is that the president and Central Command are moving these assets into the theater to signal that they have the option, they have the capability of seizing islands such as Kharg Island or seizing potentially the islands that the Iranian regime uses in order to threaten the Strait of Hormuz. There are several islands closer to the Strait of Hormuz from which they traditionally have done that, or also to provide supporting kind of seizure operations if there's a military forcing of the strait. So it really increases the president and Central Command's options. John Yang: Kharg Island, of course, is where 90 -- about 90 percent of Iran's oil is processed, export oil. Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Right. John Yang: Fred, are these things a good idea? Is it a good idea to do this? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): They're, quite frankly, fraught with risk. I mean, very -- obviously, these forces could accomplish their tactical objectives. They could seize the island. They could destroy coastal missile batteries. They could seize various sites along the Strait of Hormuz. But then the question is, what next? And, really, the question is, does that tactical advantage become a strategic liability? Because those forces are now exposed. We know that Iran has trained for this sort of scenario. There's a saying among military planners that the enemy always gets a vote, right? And so the Iranians may have multiple retaliation options against these forces, against staging areas, against the supply lines. The other big risk is that it will not completely free the Strait of Hormuz, right? It will certainly degrade Iran's ability to disrupt the traffic coming in, but it won't solve the problem completely. And then I should also add, we have seen this before, where there's an initial force, and because it doesn't achieve its strategic objectives, it may achieve its tactical objectives, those strategic objectives remain unobtained or unfulfilled, that requires more forces. You have to set up a buffer zone to protect those forces. And very quickly, you're in a situation of mission creep. John Yang: Jack, what do you think of -- make of the fact that these forces were not in the region when this war began? What does that tell you? Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): I think it means these were an option. I mean, look, military planners plan everything to the nth degree. I used to be one. I think Fred did too. You planned scenarios in branches and sequels to all of your base plans. I just think it just means this was an option that they maybe hoped not to have to employ, but also they adapted to the situation. I think, look, as far as whether it's a good idea, it's a high-risk tactical operation, but the payoff is huge. If there's a U.S. seizure of Kharg Island, if there's a U.S. forcing of the strait, militarily forcing of the strait, sort of game over for Tehran at that point. They're pretty much -- they're out of strategic military options. They have been quite degraded. We are the enemy that has gotten a vote in their game plan. They are off their game plan. I don't think their command-and-control is coherent enough to be able to adapt. I think our forces are inside their OODA loop, if you will. So, as I say, tactical risk of that kind of operation is high. The payoff strategically would also be quite high. John Yang: And, Joel, I apologize for calling you Jack. Fred, are these troops, do you think that they are leveraged for negotiations? Or are the -- is the United States looking to change the trajectory of this war? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): I think both could be at play. And I agree with Joel that the military has obviously thought through multiple scenarios, but I'm just very concerned that the Iranians have thought this through before. And we don't know their strategic calculus. You seize a critical oil terminal like Kharg, you could empower hard-liners. You could really force the regime to dig in even deeper. I don't think it's game over for them. I think they have got redundancy. They have got resilience. They could open conflict in another theater. They could engage proxies. So we don't know their retaliation options. I think they see this as a long game, right? I mean, you're talking about a generation of leadership that weathered the Iran-Iraq War. This is very short term for them, right? And so simply seizing these islands and these assets, I don't know if it's -- I don't think it's going to change their strategic calculus about suddenly giving in to Trump's terms. John Yang: Fred, I want to stay with you for a second. There's been a lot of talk about the rhetoric of the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth. He talked about no quarter, no mercy for our enemies. He said there would be no stupid rules of engagement. Early this week, he prayed that every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness. What do you make of this? Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): Well, it's, quite frankly, shocking. It's irresponsible, strategically reckless, ethically problematic on multiple fronts. I mean, look, the Constitution specifies a separation between religion and state, between church and state. And so public officials are not supposed to use their office to push a particular religious vision. And that's exactly what the secretary is doing with this very apocalyptic Christian nationalist vision. The second issue is, the U.S. armed forces are very diverse. You have men and women of diverse faiths or no faiths at all. And that's going to create frustration or alienation. It's not a good leadership strategy. You're not building inclusion. I mean, the other problem with framing this... John Yang: Fred, I'm going to interrupt you, because we're running out of time, and I'd like to hear Joel's thoughts on this. Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): Yes. John Yang: Sorry. Lt. Col. Frederic Wehrey (Ret.): Yes, sure. Sure. Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.): Yes, and I think Secretary Hegseth is the secretary at war. He's trying to explain to his forces who are engaged while they're fighting. And he's trying to inspire them. He's trying to -- he's trying to get -- show them confidence in the campaign. And I think he's also -- he's also a little bit frustrated about the depiction of a campaign which is a one-sided contest being -- as being something other than that. John Yang: Joel Rayburn and Fred Wehrey, thank you both very much.